Dodd: Roberts 'probably a pretty good choice.'
Chris Wallace questions Sens. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on today's "Fox News Sunday":
WALLACE: Senator McConnell, the White House has released literally thousands of pages of documents from John Roberts's work in the Reagan administration, both at the White House and also at the Reagan Justice Department.
From reading the documents, it's clear that he is a conservative. But is there anything that you see in those documents that shows him to be outside the mainstream?
MCCONNELL: Well, the Democrats think almost everybody's outside the mainstream. Their definition of mainstream is a little bit different from mine. My mainstream definition is what would be good in Louisville, Kentucky; theirs, I guess, on the east side of Manhattan.
(LAUGHTER)
MCCONNELL: Look, in terms of the documents, the administration, as you indicated, has turned over 70,000 pages. There are going to be additional requests for solicitors' papers. But this administration views the letter signed in 2002 by six living former solicitors, a majority of whom were Democrats, that that would have a chilling effect on the young people who work there in the solicitor's office and make it less likely that they would express themselves openly, is the position they're going to take. So I think the Senate clearly has enough information to make a decision on Judge Roberts, and I think they're going to confirm him. WALLACE: Senator Dodd, without getting into the question -- I know you would like to see more documents, but from the documents that you've seen so far -- and I think it's interesting because you can clearly see John Roberts speaking in his own voice in a number of these documents -- have they made you more or less likely to vote for him as a Supreme Court justice? DODD: Well, I haven't seen the documents myself. Obviously the committee will go through all of that. And my hope would be that these additional requests -- I think there are 20 of them out of some 300 when he was deputy solicitor general -- would be forthcoming. I think that's important that the Senate have that information. This is a lifetime appointment. Judge Roberts is 50 years old. Lord willing, he'll be around on that bench maybe for 30, 35, 40 years. And certainly the American public, through their senators, rely on us to getting all the information that's necessary to make good decisions. I think he's probably a pretty good choice. I've been reading the newspaper articles about him. He's a conservative choice but one that has a distinguished legal record, an academic record, certainly qualified on all of those grounds to be on the Supreme Court. The open-ended question for us clearly is what are his views about some of the basic values, the equal protection clause, the privacy clause of the Constitution. These are things that members of the Congress through their -- and their representatives want to know about during the confirmation process. This is a nomination, not a coronation. That's why we have a nomination process. I look forward to that process, and if he comes through it and answers those questions well, he'll have my vote.
By Fred Barbash |
July 31, 2005; 11:37 AM ET
| Category:
For the Record
Previous: Sunday Papers |
Next: The Morning Papers
Posted by: Doug | July 31, 2005 04:29 PM
More about the mysterious "Privacy Clause" here:
Posted by: Andrew | July 31, 2005 08:47 PM
Chris Dodd, Constitutional Scholar.
Posted by: Vanderleun | August 1, 2005 11:51 AM
Oh, yeah, "nomination not coronation." A real original phrase maker to boot.
Posted by: Vanderleun | August 1, 2005 11:53 AM
John Roberts is a TERRIBLE choice for Supreme Court. He's in a fine job now.
His problem is that he looks at the world with an 'inside baseball' perspective. A legal wonk, if you will.
I'd like to see Justices who have some experience outside our strange legal system. Some who think like an ordinary citizens.
Posted by: Robin Roberts | August 2, 2005 12:49 AM
John Roberts is a TERRIBLE choice for Supreme Court. He's in a fine job now.
His problem is that he looks at the world with an 'inside baseball' perspective. A legal wonk, if you will.
I'd like to see Justices who have some experience outside our strange legal system. Some who think like an ordinary citizens.
Posted by: Charlie Trie | August 2, 2005 12:50 AM
John Roberts is a TERRIBLE choice for Supreme Court. He's in a fine job now.
His problem is that he looks at the world with an 'inside baseball' perspective. A legal wonk, if you will.
I'd like to see Justices who have some experience outside our strange legal system. Some who think like an ordinary citizens.
Posted by: Charlie Trie | August 2, 2005 12:58 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Tell me again, which article has the "Privacy Clause"? IDIOT!